Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-316


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Landing Ship Medium. See Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 for the rationale.  Sandstein  11:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

USS LSM-316

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No evidence of any actual notability (meeting some very liberal, unaccepted essay isn't sufficient). Awards are meaningless as they were distributed by the thousands for "being there", nothing more. Sources are not independent or not reliable and indepth. A run of the mill ship which had nothing remarkable in its career. Military equipment being sold from one country to another happens literally all the time. Fram (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have long considered that all commissioned military vessels are notable enough for articles. See WP:MILUNIT #4, which is a long-accepted standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not a "long accepted standard", that is an essay. I have no idea who the "we" are you seem to be speaking for, but the long accepted standard is WP:GNG, which isn't met here. Fram (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP - the ship served with three navies. It would benefit from the addition of a "Description" section, but needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Sourcing is solid enough. Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Serving with three navies is irrelevant, military material being sold from one country to another and so on is normal procedure and doesn't make that material more or less notable. The sourcing is fan sites and databases. Fram (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Landing Ship Medium. The subject does not meet the GNG due to a lack of significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. WP:MILUNIT is only an essay and should not be given more weight beyond that. Pilaz (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Has coverage in RS to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Landing Ship Medium, this ship does not pass WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes GNG, and long standing consensus is that commissioned vessel = notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep LSMs are warships, moreover even commissioned into warfare and by several countries, aren't that notable enough? Delta (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Has there been some canvassing to get the Milhist editors suddenly out in droves (on all these AfDs) after so many days? Anyway, a lot of people from a project parrotting that these meet GNG (without evidence) and that they have a local consensus to keep these, doesn't make these true or valid of course. Fram (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There were notices posted at MILHIST and SHIPS, but they were posted a week ago. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why it's somewhat strange that there suddenly are three keeps from milhist people now, after nearly a week, and nothing for 4 days inbetween. Deltasquad was explicitly urged by thewolfchild to come and vote keep at these afds, for the others I don't know what if anything caused this. Fram (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I'd read too much into it - I was aware of these when the notice was initially posted, but didn't have time to look into them until today. Parsecboy (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Mztourist - don't think there's enough meat on the bones to warrant an individual article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Landing Ship Medium, I couldn't find sufficient in-depth sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. A database (uboat.net), a self-published website (navsource.org), and a jstor link which doesn't appear to have in-depth and sustained coverage. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Besides the RS showing passing GNG, one of the reasons of long standing consensus of retaining articles of commissioned military vessels is that it's literally impossible for there not to be extensive government reports on the proposal, planning, production, operation and long term analysis of such vessels. Editors need to instead put their attention to creating new articles and improving existing ones than to endlessly arguing over the literally of thousands of similar military vessel articles. Oakshade (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Government reports are not independent sources and do nothing to establish notability. Fram (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to suitable class page. Nobody has produced any actual references that would demonstrate this passes WP:GNG which is the relevant policy/guideline. WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not a sufficient argument. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.